Lots of ink has been spilled on various reports and news stories about this pandemic. From its early days in China to its devastating death tolls globally as it spreads to how some markets like Germany and South Korea are slowly opening up their markets to re-establish ‘life as normal’, there has certainly been no lack of opinion, professional or editorial, on the impact of this international viral outbreak.

As the stages of recovery vary across markets, the tonality of different write-ups is gradually shifting towards one that is more forward-facing (and some would even say, hopeful!). Different articles are springing up, pontificating on what kinds of post-pandemic world we want to see. Some question the validity of returning to a ‘normal’ that was anything but in the first place, while others take a more macro-level analysis to arrive at how entire economies and governance should pivot so we’re prepared for the fall-out the best way we can.   

We would like to add our voice to this body of work, and share our thoughts on how we think the post-COVID will look like for certain industries, by doing what we do best: analysis through the consumer lens.

Based on our expertise in specific sectors, we went about consolidating and analyzing all current phenomenon that are happening globally, examining the impact of changes that have been observed, thinking about habits that have been formed and questioning what it all means in the long term. Over the next few weeks, we’ll share these – covering everything from retail finance to food and beverage.

What kinds of change can / shoud we expect?  

When it comes to the ‘future’, there are various existing theories in the realm of behavioral sciences, that talk about how humans tend not to be ‘future-oriented’ and usually value the ‘now’ more. Within the context of talking about change, that presents a real problem – as the inability to visualize/internalize a version of the future gets in the way of discussing or enacting change. This is a significant point that we need to acknowledge, right off the bat, otherwise any projections or proclamations about post-pandemic change will likely be no more than wishful thinking.

Another common way to put forth any suggestions of change tend to be what is known as the ‘convergent’ approach: for example, Phenomenon A is likely to happen, because Phenomenon B, C and D are observed to be present, and form favorable conditions/climate to facilitate A’s occurrence. While not wrong, and this is at the heart of many techniques of scenario analysis (PESTLE being one of them), it again does not account for the ‘human agency’ element, the clear and pinpointed reason why a change CAN and SHOULD happen.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

To this end, amongst the many change management models out there, we feel there is one that may be particularly useful to help us conceptualize the change that can come about in a post-COVID world. Chip and Dan Heath’s ‘sticky habits’ model talks about how, at the heart of reasonable and sustained changes, are 3 simple elements which explain why/how those changes happened, in spite of supposedly challenging circumstances.

In this model, which can also be used to operationalize change, the authors argue that alignment amongst the rational and emotional sides of a person is crucial in setting about the momentum for change. That process is facilitated further when the route towards change is clear, attainable, and rewarding to the individual aiming to change. The analogy the authors offer is an elephant rider on a path: the ‘rider’ symbolizes the rational mind, while the ‘elephant’ stands for the emotional mind. A determined ‘rider’ cannot make an unwilling ‘elephant’’ go down an intended path, no matter how hard he/she tries, much as how even if the ‘elephant’ is willing, it cannot effectively be on the road without efficient directing from the ‘rider’. Within that analogy, the ‘path’ will also need to be clearly marked and signposted, so it is the actual one the ‘elephant’ and the ‘rider’ wishes to travel on.

We believe in this model, as we feel it helps to guide our examination of change that’s really rooted in consumer needs: what is it about a particular change that we have observed that shows how the rational and the emotional mind have been satisfied, such that even though the path is ‘unclear’, we understand and are confident that it is a feasible change that will stick, once the pandemic is over.

What will stay the same?

“The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same…”

The saying above cannot be truer; in fact, that is the whole premise for a lot of science-fiction based entertainment. The future in a lot of these alternate realities are often only incrementally different to the one that we are living in, because storywriters depicting these worlds realize that no matter how far away this future is, it needs to be rooted in a certain degree of ‘realism’ in order for readers/viewers to appreciate and accept the portrayal, as well as contrast how different/’out of this world’ the changes are.

Another way to understand this contrast between change and non-change, and how acceptance is achieved, is through the MAYA Principle: MAYA stands for ‘most advanced yet acceptable’. This principle provides guidance in the world of product design. As a discipline, product designers are always faced with the challenge of producing something new and exciting for consumers, be it a piece of furniture or an electronic product. Designs that draw too much inspiration from the left field can risk alienating potential users, while sticking too much to the status quo results in a product that does not excite at all. The MAYA principle thus proposes that designers can focus on elements within their work that taps onto the notion of a ‘familiar strange’, where it’s new enough to pique interest, but familiar enough that it does not overwhelm and lead to outright rejection.

Taking on both notions, we thus feel that even as we look forward to propose what’s going to change post COVID-19, we should also take note of consumer mindsets that will likely remain the same, the ‘evergreen’ needs that will not be displaced, even as the world hurtles towards a ‘new normal’.

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in various markets has been undeniable. Some sectors like travel and hospitality have been hard-hit, while physical retail has suffered badly too due to social distancing and lockdown measures. Workers in these industries are affected as well, with their livelihoods threatened by uncertainty and instability. Within this context, money worries are certainly in the minds of many, as they struggle to make ends meet.

Even amongst the fortunate who still have their jobs, it is likely that they would have been impacted as well, albeit at a different level. Without having to worry about the ‘now’, they would be thinking about the ‘next’ and the ‘near future’. Economic downturns are not new, but one caused by a global virus outbreak is a little harder to manage and predict. As such, the more financially-minded consumer will have to start to think about what their investment portfolios should really comprise, how they can be economically-sheltered from the next disaster, and what kinds of financial planning will allow them to not just weather the storm, but also thrive in the long run.  

So what should retail banks, financial institutions and fintech entities prioritize, as the pandemic improves? What role do these organizations need to play in their customers’ lives, and on what kinds of principles do their strategies need to be based? We explore 3 key areas: consumer spending patterns, investing and cash, sharing our thoughts by examining what is likely to change in the post-COVID world, and what will remain the same.

Consumer Spending Patterns: Between Saving and Spending

Short term changes

Within Asia, two markets that recently relaxed their lockdown situations were China and South Korea. In both cases, there were instances of what is now an increasing familiar term in post-COVID coverage: ‘revenge spending’. The Hermes flagship store in Guangzhou saw its biggest single-day earning ever, when millions of Yuan were spent by previously cooped-up shoppers on luxury items. While in Thailand, which recently lifted the ban on alcohol sales at retail level, saw unprecedented levels of consumers binge-buying wines, beers, and spirits.

Regardless of the market and product category, one thing is common: perceived scarcity will motivate consumers to spend disproportionately in the short term. This also illustrates how the fundamental principles of behavioral economics and the multitude states of cognitive biases (too many to name here) are once again proven true.

Long term trends

In the longer term though, what are we to make of consumer spending and saving mindsets, in turn motivating actions/behaviors, which will be meaningful for financial entities to action on?

We see two likely scenarios, each combining a certain degree of emotional and rational assessment of how individuals see their ‘now’ and ‘(near) future’:

  1. Excessive fear and over-reaction to the economic fall-out of the pandemic and feeling the extreme need to be more assured/confident of their financial states, leading to reduced spending/motivation to seek out additional/side income
  2. Resignation and coming-to-terms with their helplessness when it comes to managing their finances (i.e. surrendering to the insurmountable force of macroeconomic changes), and maintaining the status quo, feeling good about creating/maintaining their sense of ‘normal’

There will certainly be many shades between these two extremes, just as there will also be minorities falling outside of these as well (e.g. increased spending/acquiring material goods to achieve the sense of security), but what’s certain is that financial institutes will have to play the role of showing the path to fruitful savings and meaningful spending, without leaning too far into one side or the other. An established bank that has a reputation for best-in-class credit cards in consumers’ minds may take the opportunity to come up with a savings product that validates a consumer’s side hustle, while a fintech that’s trying to break into the travel space may have to use this chance to re-think what their value-proposition really is to consumers who have to temporarily shelve their wanderlust.

Underlying all these, of course, is the presumption that the entity has a ‘trust bank’ upon which to draw notions of credibility and capability; all the money in the world thrown behind a huge messaging campaign in the post-COVID world will not help, if that trust was not already there in the consumers’ pre-COVID reality. 

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Investing: Between Risks and Returns

Short term changes

In the pre-COVID days, any sort of consumer research on investment products/journeys/choice and preference of investment instruments, often boils down to 3 main points:

  • How clearly the product information is introduced, and how much of its mechanism is understood
  • How well the investor can conceptualize the product for himself/herself, and how he/she imagines it within his/her portfolio
  • How he/she feels about it on the overall level

This combination of rational considerations and emotional reassurances will likely not change dramatically in the ‘new normal’, but there is the need to acknowledge the likelihood of investors perceiving the market to be more VUCA (i.e. volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous), thus leading them to re-assess whether it’s the ‘right time’ to be investing in the first place.

Based on past economic downturns, alternative investment instruments (e.g. art, whisky, coveted luxury brand handbags, etc.) have also started to become more commonplace and offer investors another way to grow their money. However, the mechanisms of such tools are often not clear, and usually complement a portfolio that’s still predominantly stocks/shares driven. Insurance-based products are also believed to be a likely winner in the world of money management; as consumers become more risk-averse, bonds and capital-guaranteed products are logically seen to be aligned with immediate appetites.

Long term trends

All that said, though, it is still necessary to highlight that very few investors carry out investments purely motivated by fear of losing; the savvy ones are aware of the notion of calculated risks, and the really experienced ones within that small bunch of savvy investors also know that ultimately the global market is very much sentiment-driven (read: emotions, cue behavioral economic principles again). This highlights the importance of ‘confidence’ and decision-making based on knowing all the ‘facts’ available at a specific point in time, which is actually the fundamental strategy applied by many governments around the world which have successfully contained the pandemic in their respective countries.

Therefore, in the post-COVID world, we feel retail entities that will do well with investors are those that understand how to pull the ‘clarity’ lever, showing their workings around how they feel a product/tool will help the investor achieve their wealth goals, while acknowledging the presence of VUCA factors and understanding what kinds of emotions can arise from investing in a global economy that’s still ‘finding its feet’.

Consumer perceptions of cash: is it still “king’?

Short term changes

Even before the onset of the pandemic, it is becoming increasingly clear that many markets globally are moving towards implementing cashless systems, or at least encouraging consumers to rely less on cash. Though not all executions were done well (e.g. India’s sudden and forceful removal of certain currencies from the market create a financial nightmare amongst consumers which took many months of correcting), the movement is at least gaining momentum, and acceptance appears to be higher in markets which are traditionally cash-focused

Covid-19 containment measures have basically forced upon various societies the need to pay for items in a cashless way; the removal of physical retail to adhere to safe distancing measures meant that opportunities to use physical cash have reduced dramatically, while paying for online purchases tends to be electronic in nearly all cases (save for cash-on-delivery options). Not having to handle cash within current context also means reduced chances of infection through virus transference on surfaces, so it appears to have multiple advantages that’s aligned with the ‘sign of the times’

What this means, though, is while the transition is quite smooth for the cashless consumer, the cash-minded one will likely have to think about how that impacts other parts of their financial realities. Money management and tracking, for one, will likely need to take new forms if cash spending is slowly being phased out from their daily lives. Another area which will likely see some change is in digital payment security: with increased volumes of payment, it will be naïve to assume that similar online safety mechanisms will suffice. To prevent any backlash that can potentially happen due to insecure cashless payment systems, it is an area within the financial industry that needs immediate attention, such that consumer confidence in the system may be sustained

Long term trends

However, we must not confuse “accelerated pace of change” with consumers loving the new ‘state of play’ for cashless; we are of the opinion that consumer sentiments towards the ‘meaning’ of cash (e.g. freedom/fluidity, security, options, empowerment, tangibility, etc.) may in fact deepen in the post-pandemic world, due to perceived uncertainties and insecurities (as we have mentioned above). What this then means is that the notion of ‘cashless’ may either need to be strengthened such that it goes beyond attributes like ‘convenience’ and ‘ease’, or relegated to specific consumption scenarios that may not need to be as ‘meaningful’ as cash 

This has important implications for the numerous fintech institutions globally that are trying to ride on the wave of new financial attitudes in the ‘new normal’; whatever solutions they’re proposing (e.g. payments, investments, money management, etc.) will likely be based on a cashless model, so on top of proving the validity of their use cases, the fundamental value that going cashless needs to be just as apparent. Only then can it achieve both resonance and acceptance amongst consumers, as they navigate their financial world and arrive at their own conclusions on what they will relegate to the cash ‘world’, and what they will gladly make ‘cashless’.

This week marks a change in the focus for many news outlets and governments. From protection to productivity – as leaders grapple with the challenge of getting economies moving again. There is more confidence in some countries’ approach and communication (New Zealand) than in others (UK, US – looking at you!). However, in all situations, there is an agreement that the world we are returning to is not the same as we left.

The workplace is no different. The Straits Times last week carried a story from Singapore’s Minister for Trade and Industry about how ‘working from home will continue to be the norm for the majority even after restrictions are lifted. Forbes has taken this further and stated that “The Covid-19 coronavirus is becoming the accelerator for one of the greatest workplace transformations of our lifetime. How we work, exercise, shop, learn, communicate, and of course, where we work, will be changed forever!”

However, for those of us that have been able to continue our working life from the safety of our home, will the adjustment back to the office be harder than the adjustment to work at home? US Tech website BuiltIn quote a CEO who states that it takes “6 to 12 weeks for a smooth transition from on-site to remote working”. For many, this timeframe has already been met. People are working at home, people are productive, and…are people are starting to realise the benefits: lack of travel, more flexible hours, ability to help with childcare … With many positives to working from home, what does this mean for the future of work?

Certainly, in the short term, offices will be sparse locations. Governments are still advising those who can work from home to work from home. If you do return, social distancing measures will have to be evident. Here in Singapore – if you are do not implement safe management of your workplace, the government can fine you or even shut down operations for errant employers. The Economist offers up an opinion piece on how that distancing may look. A 2m gap between desks could reduce the capacity of workspaces to 30-35% of the pre-Covid lockdown. The piece also details a high-tech solution before the lockdown in UAE, with contactless pathways from door to desk, relying on motion sensors and facial coding to open doors. Having a reduced workforce onsite, or investing in tech are expensive options for most firms – but what about the office itself. What role will it play?

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

At Kadence, we have managed to retain productivity. Completing projects to time, and collaborating using video calls, Slack, online whiteboards, and Google Docs. What we really miss is the unintended interaction with others. Overhearing conversations and adding some extra insights, hearing the chatter of voices and the energy in the room. At Kadence, we also have some onsite resources that are hard to replicate offsite. Focus group viewing facilities, a call center, and workshop facilities will all be utilized in the future. However, the floor space may change. We might be more open to a higher proportion of staff working from offsite at any one time. Rather than whole team meetings and designated desks, perhaps our floor space will have more meeting areas. So that project teams can come together in an environment to bounce off each other, then return home to execute the required tasks. Vice talk of new rituals being formed to bring meaning to home working and The Atlantic talk about dress codes changing in life after COVID.

However, perhaps the most important change will be in HR, not in the physical use of space. If people are going to work from offsite more often, how does team bonding work? How will you help teams to prioritize their workloads? How will you manage line reports? These skills will require even more attuned social skills and people managers.

I would foresee offices being more flexible environments. Bringing people together when it matters, but keeping people apart for safety….and for their own personal preference. As a result, team dynamics will change. Managers will need to juggle a wider array of pastoral matters. The corporate cultures that thrive will be flatter, more candid, and more collaborative.

Perhaps the new normal is still being discovered, but the ‘now normal’ is all about flexibility and creativity.

In times gone by (which, despite feeling like years ago, I only mean the start of 2020!) if you were in the UK, and making small talk, you would reference the weather. In Singapore, you would ask “have you taken breakfast?” But there is now a new form of small talk. At the start of any news article, blog, meeting or catch up with family, it is now customary to reference the ‘crazy times’ that we live in – and you have to reference ‘the virus’. It begins with small talk, but make no mistake – what we are living through is the dawn of a ‘new normal’ and the sooner we start thinking about ‘what next’ and not about ‘what used to be’ the better countries, companies and consumers will be.

This is an anthropological examination, the likes of which has never been seen before. The ability to assess how governments and populations deal with the exact same crisis at the exact same time will be discussed for years to come. Hopefully, something is learned from this tragic situation, something to reduce the risk in the future. Writing in the Economist this month Bill Gates feels there must be dramatic innovations in vaccines, home diagnostics and antiviral drugs for us to be able to combat another pandemic. However, Gates also references Winston Churchill, speaking in 1942, as Britain had just won its first land victory “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Gates feels that things must change.

A global crisis is nothing new. Neither is the talk about ‘change’. The last recession in the late 2000s saw the rise of Uber, Airbnb and Pinterest. In fact, looking back through history, we can begin to notice a pattern that extends beyond the startup ecosystem: Apple, Microsoft, General Electric, IBM, General Motors, Burger King, CNN, and Disney were all founded during recessions. But this time, in 2020, all the rules have changed.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In the past, even during recessions, there were those that suffered economically and those that prospered. Whilst this is still likely to be the case, the type of suffering that is hitting markets is unique. Retailers are shut. Restaurants are shut. Production lines are shut. Airlines are grounded. Every person has been impacted. And as a result how we think about brands, how we rationalise our purchase habits, how we determine what is now an ‘essential’ spend has perhaps been changed forever. As was stated in a Forbes article – How we work, exercise, shop, learn, communicate, and of course, where we work, will be changed forever!

Whilst the temptation is to throw hands in the air and proclaim that ‘nobody knows what’s happening’ is strong. If you watch, if you listen, if you immerse, brands will be able to pick up important clues as to how to navigate these changes. Social media groups are rallying round small businesses. Facebook groups are being set up to identify the brands that ‘deserve’ your money. Brands with billionaire owners, taking advantage of government support packages are being called out as immoral. Now is the time to look, listen and to plan. Whilst I am of course bias, now is perhaps the most important time to invest in your research and strategy teams. Seeking inspiration, insight and ideas from others is perhaps the best use of your time. There will be brands that get it right, and brands that get it wrong. That has always been the case, but somehow, now the stakes feel higher now.  None of us know when the crisis will be over. However, we can be sure that the companies that do survive, will be the ones that grasp what is the ‘new normal’ faster than those that don’t.

In the recent weeks we’ve been inundated with announcements by what seems like every company in America, large and small, announcing their approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. With much of the country at home, following the news, shopping online, viewing content and using social media more than before, American consumers are paying close attention to how brands are making them feel. Social media is swarming with consumer commentary on corporations’ responses. Brands have never been more in the spotlight and under such scrutiny. Now is a key moment for brands to define their identity and core values to consumers through their response.

As part of our COVID-19 qualitative market research study with 2020 Research, we asked our community of 30 Americans from Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York City to weigh in with their thoughts on how brands have responded to this pandemic.

Here are 10 key insights from our community for companies to consider as they strategize their ongoing response and communication in this new reality.

HOW SHOULD BRANDS COMMUNICATE TO CONSUMERS?

1. Avoid Email Overload

Early emails communication was appreciated but by mid-March consumers quickly became annoyed as corporate communication routinely flooded their inboxes day after day. Consumers have stopped reading them all because many seem to include a “blanket response”, explaining that companies are following CDC guidelines. Companies who sent their first email late into the crisis risk getting noticed for the wrong reasons. They come across as a disingenuous, “purely PR” response.

“I’ve been up to my navel in ‘response’ emails, seems like it’s anyone I’ve ever ordered from or used. I was fine with them at first but they’re getting a bit irritating as they continue to try to keep you updated.” – Boomer, Houston

Consumers do appreciate emails that personally affect them, like updates from local grocery stores and restaurants notifying customers of their closing, shopping hours, new safety measures and sales notifications for needed items.

2. Actions speak louder than ads

Brands that have made a memorable, positive impression on consumers have responded by taking real action and implementing change, not through passive communication. Consumers recall hearing about companies’ positive actions in the news, social media, radio, or podcasts. They find secondary reports more credible than hearing about a company’s response through ads or direct marketing communications. However, consumers’ first-hand experience with brands, in store or online, can completely derail or reinforce their perceptions of a company’s response.

HOW SHOULD BRANDS RESPOND TO COVID-19?

Consumers expect companies to be aware of how this pandemic is impacting our lives and empathetic to how this crisis is making us feel. They appreciate brands that have responded in ways that align with their prioritized values, putting people first and contributing in helpful ways.

3. DO: Prioritize people over profit

Above all else, consumers appreciate company leaders that have shown they care about their employees, like paying them though the shutdown, distributing executive salaries, giving raises to front-line workers, providing protective gear to staff.

“Patagonia and other retailers are continuing to pay employees while stores are closed…I think Patagonia’s response to COVID-19 will continue to motivate me to shop there more and support their brand.” – Millennial, Chicago

4. DON’T: Put business first

In contrast, consumers have negative perceptions of companies that put off closing or implementing equipment and efforts to protect the health of their employees and customers.

“[One shipping company] have kept regular all day business hours, they are not providing their front line staff that deals with the public proper cleaning or safety gear…They haven’t implemented any social distancing rules and at any moment it gets crowded.” – Gen X, Chicago

Consumers are especially critical of major corporations that, despite rising stock prices, are not increasing compensation for their over-extended employees, or paying employees for extended time off due to COVID-19. Some even go out of their way to investigate workers’ perspectives and will write off companies for not treating employees right.

“I’m frustrated that many lower wage workers are getting screwed over when they need the most protection. It’s difficult to see [some delivery] companies … rising in the stock markets.” – Gen Z, NYC

5. DO: Contribute to the solution

Companies and wealthy individuals that have donated generous resources to support the greater goal of saving lives have made a very positive impression on consumers, stimulating feelings of optimism, hope and American pride.

Consumers are most impressed by company leaders that are repurposing their operations to produce or acquire much-needed medical supplies, like Microsoft, Tesla, Apple, GM, Dyson, Medtronic, MyPillow.com and Gap.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

“Corsair turned their gin bottling process into making hand sanitizer … I love the ingenuity, creativity, and response in a time of need. I had never tried their liquor products before, I went straight out and bought a bottle of their gin and one of their whiskey products.” – Millennial, LA

They also admire brands in hard-hit industries, like Hotels.com, that are proactively supporting the greater cause despite their losses.

6. DON’T: Be passive

Consumers are critical of major corporations and moguls that have not donated money or resources towards sourcing medical supplies, judging them as greedy, unethical, and reassessing their relationship with these brands.

Similarly, many are angered by brands that are not taking any action or trivializing the pandemic.

“One specific company that I buy from weekly did not say anything about it. I had to ask via Instagram comments. The owner finally did answer after many comments…called it a “virus scare” which was annoying and turned me off from her company. I felt like she was downplaying what is actually a pandemic.” – Gen Z, LA

7. DO: Adapt to customer needs

Consumers applaud companies that quickly recognized people’s changing needs and adapted to meet these needs in creative and thoughtful ways. These businesses have revamped their operations processes to protect customers and employees and created innovative new services and solutions to help customers. While other companies are adopting these trends, the early adopters and innovators made a memorable impression.   

“With contactless shopping services.  I’ve always enjoyed shopping at CVS over Walgreens but this move that they’ve made has made me take another look at them.” – Gen X, Chicago

8. DO: Support non-customers

Brands that are also extending their services and offers to non-customers are bringing in more potential customers and improving their overall brand image. Consumers view these companies as caring, generous, thoughtful and report intentions to support them in the future.

“CorePower Yoga made a number of their on-demand videos free for anyone so people who do boutique classes can still keep active. I usually can’t even afford yoga normally in NYC, but I’ve been using it! It makes me want to invest in them in the future when I can!” – Gen Z, NYC

9. DON’T: Disregard customer needs

Consumers are put off by companies that have been insensitive to their needs. Grocery stores and retailers that were slow to follow the changes and safety measures taken by their competitors are seen as uncaring and profit-driven. Large retailers that have increased prices in the wake of COVID-19 anger consumers who now view them as greedy and profit-driven. Communication that is irrelevant or insensitive to consumers’ feelings and needs in this new reality negatively affects consumers’ perceptions of the brand. 

“I have received a few emails about “you need to schedule an appointment for us to upgrade/install new HVAC” to protect your air quality.  I found this unprofessional and unethical…trying to play on people’s fears to earn some extra bucks is wrong.”  – Gen X, Chicago

10. Remember, we’re all human.

While consumers recognize that companies are run by people who, like all of us, have never experienced this amount of change and uncertainty; in a matter of weeks, we set expectations for how brands should and should not respond during this unprecedented crisis. Now, more than ever, consumers crave connection and they are connecting most with companies that have shown they care more about people than profit, through their actions, not just their words.

In this highly emotional time, consumers are likely to remember brands that really stood out through their response, both positively and negatively. How brands are responding to COVID-19 is influencing consumers’ perceptions, awareness, consideration, usage, loyalty, and their future intentions with brands.

But it’s not too late to take action to improve brand perceptions. It is critical that companies stay aware of what consumers are currently feeling, thinking, needing and expecting from them right now. Play offense and engage in conversations with consumers. When companies care enough to respond directly to critical consumer feedback in places like social media, perceptions can shift. Connect at the human level in ways that demonstrate empathy, care and support, not just for your customers, but for everyone in the country, for humans around the world.  

For additional insights by industry, or additional information on our community or capabilities, reach out to [email protected].

Disclaimer:  Quotations from community participants have not been fact-checked and are not necessarily representative of the views of Kadence International.

Tips for brands in COVID-19

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to spread across the world, it can be a little hard to be optimistic at times; doctors and specialists still do not completely understand the virus itself, containment efforts have not been 100% effective, and the negative economic fall-out in many markets is massive. It is not the first time the world dealt with a fast-spreading virus, and indeed, pessimists like to point out that this only goes to show that the global community has not learnt one thing about epidemic control from any of the past occurrences

That said, though, the ‘glass-half-full’ set can also confidently say that depending on where you look, there are potential learnings that can be made even as the situation does not seem to be improving anytime soon. We at Kadence like to believe that every problem presents an opportunity for ‘kaizen’ (the Japanese concept of ‘constant improvements’), as we present 3 examples to prove our case:

1.     The opportunity to road-test Advanced Technology in Medical Science

It is sometimes the case that technological breakthroughs are created before a real-world use case exists, which means said breakthroughs are not necessarily relevant or have a strong market need until much later. In the case of COVID-19, however, the speed and pervasiveness with which the virus is spreading means that technological solutions are needed urgently, on top of advances in vaccination creation. From the examples below, we see that the ‘tech’ is being deployed to help and that it is not even necessarily linked to the medical field:

a)     Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning: Data scientists and researchers at Wuhan University are using programs powered by AI and ML technology to track and monitor the spread of the virus  

b)     Robots: To minimize person-to-person infections, US medical teams have deployed robots to provide care for persons diagnosed with the virus. Vital measures are being taken through the robot, and the information is then related to medical teams outside of the isolation zones

c)     Drones: The Chinese government is using drones to monitor and ensure that its citizens in at-risk cities to adhere to public health safety guidelines. Fitted with loudspeakers, identified rule-breakers will be given audio instructions, such as ‘stay indoors’ or ‘put a mask on’

2.     The opportunity of making remote working the ‘new-normal’

Prior to the outbreak, remote working tends not to be the norm in a lot of Asian work cultures: for various reasons, even though it is an increasingly encouraged in various markets, ‘going to work’ still means heading to the office for 8 hours (or more) of completing tasks with fellow co-workers, in-person. For geographically compact countries like Singapore, commuting does not present that much of an issue, compared to somewhere like Japan, where long distances to and from work is a norm that ‘salarymen’ reckon with

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

However, in view of the COVID-19 virus, to minimize contact which potentially increases the likelihood of infections, nearly all companies in both markets now implement a certain degree of remote working to ensure that businesses continue to operate while adhering to public health measures. For example, Yahoo Japan used to stipulate that employees who need to work from home for circumstantial reasons can only do so for up to 5 days in a month; following the outbreak, that limitation has been removed.

Regardless when the whole situation blows over, these work-from-home arrangements have presented itself as the best time for various non-physical modes of co-working to be tested and perfected; experienced remote workers know that while the technology has been present for many years (most companies will use at least one platform or another to facilitate conferencing within and outside of the organization), the rules of engagement and methods of effectively working together have not really been established. While no one wishes for another pandemic to put it to the test again, when the necessity arises, capitalizing on the moment to iron out the best ways of working remotely can only be a good thing in the long run

3.     The opportunity for humour: improving one’s daily life through creativity

At the height of the virus’ spread across China, as part of its containment effort, residents in major cities like Shanghai were asked to stay home and not return to work, even after the official week-long Chinese New Year break in late January/early February. While some initially relished the extended break, the attendant closure of public leisure facilities soon made it clear that staying home was not going to be as easy as they thought it would be. Not long after a week passed did citizens start to compare the act of staying home akin to ‘imprisonment’, and boredom and restlessness quickly set-in, once entertainment options were exhausted

The more imaginative Chinese started to look for ways to entertain themselves and put their creative skills to the test. It is most apparent in this particular contest, organized by a local English-language magazine, to see how artistic Shanghainese can get when it comes to ‘pimping’ their face masks, a vital ‘first line of defence’ in the act of protecting oneself from the virus

While some may feel that this is an act which trivializes the gravity of the situation in China, others can argue that contextually, there needs to be a psychological ‘outlet’, a salve for the average person to let off some steam, such that they do not get consumed by the prevailing mood of paranoia, suspicion, uncertainty and helplessness. Also, China is no stranger to social media fads, and as far as this contest goes, at least it encourages contestants to put their free time to good use, as opposed to more mindless online shopping or social commentary   

All the above examples highlight a fundamental truth about crises in general: while we cannot control what happens, we can certainly control how we react to events. The ingenious chooses to exercise creativity when tackling problems, leveraging lateral thinking for solutions, while the flexible work their way around problems. Having a little fun along the way never hurts, and it certainly helps to reduce the stress of dealing with all the uncertainties of a medical emergency that are still unfolding day-by-day.

As of the first week of March 2020, the total number of confirmed cases in mainland China, the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak, is slightly over 80,000. This works out to be no more than 6 cases in 100,000 people. The probability is much lower in most other places, such as 3.38 cases in 100,000 people in Italy, 1.89 in 100,000 in Singapore, and 0.03 in 100,000 in the US.

Despite the low probability, many people are appearing to be more fearful than they should be, with an exaggerated perceived risk.

Panic buying happened within hours when the DORSCON level was raised to Orange in Singapore early last month. Canned food, rice, instant noodles, and even toilet papers were swept off the shelves that evening, with queues longer than we have ever seen in supermarkets. The same phenomenon hit the US, Germany, Italy and Indonesia this week, after more local cases were confirmed. Masks, sanitizers, and disinfectants are sold out, social events and activities are cancelled, and many instances of racism against people of Chinese ethnicity have been observed around the world.

Is this fear rational? It seems the fear is spreading faster, and affecting people’s lives to a larger extent, than the virus itself. Why is that?

The following five cognitive biases can explain most of these irrational behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak.

1.     Negativity bias – we have the tendency to pay more attention to bad things

Humans have a natural tendency to place more emphasis to negative things, such as remembering negative incidents more clearly, being more affected by criticisms than compliments, or feeling more emotional pain for a loss of $10 than happiness gained for the picking up $10.

“Good things last eight seconds…Bad things last three weeks.” – Linus van Pelt, Peanuts

During the COVID-19 outbreak, we tend to pay more attention to bad news (in part also due to news channels’ willingness to focus on negative news as well, following the same principle) – the number of new cases/deaths/infected patients in critical condition – much more than the number of recoveries. Some people actively search for information that scares themselves more, such as ‘evidence’ that shows masks are not effective in protecting you from the virus, reading up on past global pandemics, or even unknowingly landing on fake news which exacerbates the severity of the situation. All these contribute to the psychological fear of ‘Could it happen to me?’.

2.     Confirmation bias – we pay more attention to information that supports our belief

People are prone to believe what they want to believe, and actively look out for evidence to support their beliefs, while dismissing those that contradict. This confirmation bias is more prevalent in anxious individuals, which makes them perceive the world to be more dangerous than it is. For example, an anxious person is more likely to be more sensitive about what people think of him/her, and constantly look out for signs that show people do not like them, biasing towards negative words or actions.

We naturally seek information to protect ourselves, because the ‘unknown’ is more fearful than the ‘known’. If we think the situation is severe, we tend to focus on news that talks about the severity of the situation, which results in a self-fulfilling prophecy. With greater amount of information now being spread much more quickly over social media, the effects of this bias are a lot more pronounced. A cursory scroll through the Reddit thread on COVID-19 can quickly convince someone that it will bring about the end of the world! 

3.     Probability neglect – we have the tendency to disregard probability when making decisions

A potential outcome that is incredibly pleasant or terrifying is likely to affect our rational minds. We are more likely to be swayed by our emotions towards the potential outcome and pay less attention to the actual probability.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Looking factually at the numbers of COVID-19, the probability of getting the virus is very low, and much lower than many other risks that we are accustomed to, such as the common flu or cold. Yet people are terrified and have extreme panic or preventive behaviours towards the situation. The fact that the virus is new, and that it can be fatal, could have added to the fear, clouding judgement. Many are avoiding malls, reducing dining out, cancelling travels. This effect extends into greater economic implications. The ‘unknown’ is playing with our feelings, and we react to the feelings, not probability, towards the risk. 

4.     Stereotyping – we tend to make unjustified generalisations

On 11 February, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the official new name of the coronavirus to be COVID-19. According to WHO, they had to find a name that did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, an individual or a group of people.

This is not just a WHO naming guideline, but an important step to reduce negative stereotypes. During the early stages of the outbreak, there was hatred against Wuhan, or China, and this prejudice has even extended to all Chinese people outside of China. In many countries, many people also irrationally avoid visiting the Chinatown, or dining in Chinese restaurants, as if you visit a neighbourhood Chinese restaurant, you will get the virus, even if your neighbourhood is safe[ML1] [DG2] . Aside from how stereotyping individuals is in and off itself a negative social action, such perceptions can also lead to feelings of false assurance, that one is ‘immune’ to the virus, which in turn can result in behaviours that run counter to public health advisories.

5.     Illusory truth effect – it’s true if it’s repeated

 “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth” – people tend to believe what they constantly see or hear in the news, regardless of whether there is any evidence of its veracity. A recent study [ML3] [DG4] has shown this effect to be present even if people are familiar with the subject, as the repeated lies introduce doubt into their psyche.

This is one of the key reasons why “fake news” has been able to take hold during this outbreak – from quack sesame oil remedies to protect against the virus to misconceptions that packages from China are dangerous to handle. In Singapore, after the same few photos of panic buying being circulated via social media many times makes it a ‘nationwide phenomenon’. WHO and governments around the world have been actively trying to take back the narrative from these “fake news” sources, but the prevalence of social media and the ease of sharing such information to one’s friends and families will present an uphill challenge to combat them.

What it means for brands

Firstly, it is important to remember that cognitive biases exist in human beings, and consumer behaviours aren’t always rational. During the crisis, such behaviours are magnified, and the impact/ repercussions of these irrationalities become amplified.  you should consider what consumers are thinking, and how they are reacting. Understanding where the biasness is from, and how it manifests in thinking and actions, can help you decide on strategies what can potentially lead to behavioural changes.

Secondly, we also need to understand that relying on past information may not be able to help you accurately predict into the future, because people’s reaction to the same stimulus may have changed. For example, the last time DORSCON was raised to Orange in Singapore during the H1N1 crisis in 2019, there wasn’t ‘panic buying’ that led to the severe shortage of masks or sanitizers. Planning in the future, you can think about whether your brand will be perceived any differently once the outbreak is over – how would people’s mindset change because of the outbreak? What will people be looking out for, post- this crisis? Consider how you can address the post-crisis world, and find your competitive advantage.

At a time when there is concern that news outlets are feeding coronavirus panic and confusion, it may have been easy to miss some of the more positive news stories emerging in the last few weeks.

Chief among them is the impact that digital technology has had across Asia, as parts of China in particular have gone into lockdown, and the implications of this.

Across China, as The Economist reported earlier this week, subscriptions to digital health services have increased exponentially – a shift in consumer behaviour that previously had been expected to take five whole years. Similarly, we have seen reports that mobile, social media and streaming services are experiencing a strong uptick in usage whilst people are stuck indoors. Schooling has also moved online, with students taking classes through grade-specific TV channels, and the internet.

Above all, we’ve seen people using digital resources to overcome the loneliness of isolation. Gyms are offering sessions via WeChat, clubs are hosting club nights online, and gamers are congregating online to play together in increasing numbers, with Tencent’s Honor of Kings game reaching a peak in average daily users.

So will there be in any digital silver linings for the market research industry?

Non face-to-face methodologies are hardly new in our industry, but a shift towards online – particularly when it comes to qualitative research – now feels unavoidable. Where once a traditional focus group or face-to-face interviews may have sufficed, we’ll undoubtedly see digital techniques coming in to play more and more.

But herein lies a word of caution: because not all digital techniques are created equally, and not all solutions are suitable for certain projects: the most appropriate methodology will always depend on a study’s objectives.

There are plenty of digital options available to researchers: online focus groups, skype depth interviews, mobile diaries, and online communities to name but a few, but how do you work out which methodology is best suited to your study?

First of all, it’s important to start your thinking with your objectives, not your methodology. Just because you might have once used focus groups or face-to-face depth interviews in the past, doesn’t necessarily mean an online focus group or skype interview are the best ways to meet your objectives using digital tools. Start by asking:

  • Are you looking for breadth, or depth of insight?
  • Who are you looking to influence with your findings? What kinds of asset are most likely to have impact and support real change across your organisation? How quickly do your stakeholders need access to your insights?
  • How important is it to observe discussion and interaction between respondents – are you looking to compare different points of view?

How you answer these questions will heavily impact the methodology that’s right for you.

For instance, say you are conducting a concept or product test. Typically, you’d use a focus group setting so your product and design team could observe respondent reactions, and make on-the-spot changes to your product.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

If you’re looking for breadth, speedy insights, and discussion between respondents to understand how views differ, you might automatically think that an online focus group session, with respondents and stakeholders logging in from separate locations is your answer. However, while online focus group technology mimics the experience of a focus group setting, in practice, it is much harder for respondents to communicate with one anyone other than the moderator – you’re unlikely to meet your ‘discussion between respondents’ objective.

Instead, an online community would allow you to hit the nail on the head of all three of your objectives and then some. The key difference versus an online focus group is your ability to nurture and observe conversations between respondents in the community in a much more natural environment.

You can even use the platform to segment different audiences together, or keep the community broad to observe discussions across the whole group. Stakeholders are able to log on at any time they choose, to observe conversations, and input suggestions for additional questions to the moderators. And say you have one or two topics you’d like to explore in more depth? You can always set up private questions, to conduct one-to-one research as part of the community. And when it comes to final assets, online communities are really unrivalled when it comes to video and photo content that can be used to help land insights with your stakeholders.

If, however, observing interaction between respondents really isn’t a key necessity, and you’re looking for depth of insight, you may want to consider depth Skype interviews instead of your traditional focus group. Digital depth interviews work beautifully for concept and product testing as part of a staged programme of research, especially when you meld multiple touch-points together. You could consider following an initial Skype interview with a selfie-style filmed product review in-home for example, to really dig into consumer views.

Ultimately, while all of these methodologies have been around for some time, it’s likely that a reduction in face-to-face research will see us being far more creative with the digital options available to us. It will be fascinating to see whether or not these changes result in a long-term shift towards digital methodologies. Back in 2014 during London’s tube strikes, commuters were forced to find alternative routes to get travel around the city. Following the strikes, Transport for London reported that one in 20 commuters actually stuck with the new route they’d discovered. Will the research industry see a similar permanent shift? Time will tell.

Kadence has a wealth of experience in using digital research methodologies to help answer critical questions for brands and businesses. If you’re looking for support to help you find the best approach to meet your business objectives, please get in touch.  

Trusted by

As you put the Halloween decorations away for another year, are you one of the many people thinking twice about that age old tradition of carving a pumpkin? 

#pumpkinrescue is trending on social media as organisations and consumers alike raise awareness of unnecessary food waste that the Halloween tradition creates. According to Hubbub, in the U.K., 18,000 tonnes of pumpkin go to landfill every year (that is the equivalent of 360 million portions of pumpkin pie) and many people have had enough, using the hashtag to encourage consumers to eat the remains of their pumpkin instead. 

Concerns around food waste are no fad. Our latest research, The Concerned Consumer, found that food waste is a key issue globally, with 63% of consumers telling us they do their bit to address food waste. This is particularly important for consumers in the UK and the US, where the figure rises to 71%. 

Keen to explore this topic in more detail, we’ve been digging into the conversations around food waste on Twitter, using a comparative analytics tool called Relative Insight. 

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

So aside from discussions around #pumpkinrescue, how is food waste being discussed online?

Freezing food is a key topic of conversation. It is seen as a sustainable way to keep food fresh for longer, minimising food waste overall. And while thinking about pumpkins (which is a fruit by the way – yes, we googled it), we found that consumers are generally confused about whether they can or can’t freeze certain vegetables and fruit.

Another popular topic around food waste is finding a purpose for food scraps. Consumers are calling for more recipe suggestions incorporating vegetable scraps, or ways of composting it. Take a pumpkin as an example; the flesh can be used in pies and bread, the guts can be used for broth and mulled wine, the skin is edible in small varieties, and the seeds can be roasted. 

Want to discover more about the environmental, ethical and health concerns driving purchase behaviour in food and drink? Download our Concerned Consumer research.